Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:Vandalism)
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrators' noticeboard
This is a discussion page for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikisource. Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. This is also the place to report vandalism or request an administrator's help.
  • Please make your comments concise. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.
  • This is not the place for general discussion. For that, see the community discussion page.
  • Administrators please use template {{closed}} to identify completed discussions that can be archived
Report abuse of editing privileges: Admin noticeboard | Open proxies
Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 2,309,275
No. of articles = 652,987
No. of files = 20,106
No. of edits = 7,329,342

No. of pages in Main = 385,375
No. of pages in Page: = 1,579,696
No. validated in Page: = 353,775
No. proofread in Page: = 491,140
No. not proofread in Page: = 577,493
No. problematic in Page: = 27,665
No. of validated works = 2,736
No. of proofread only works = 1,546
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 175,431
% transcluded pages in Main = 45.52
Σ pages in Main

No. of users = 2,841,198
No. of active users = 348
No. of group:autopatrolled = 449
No. in group:sysop = 30
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 20

Checkuser requests[edit]

  • Wikisource:checkuser policy
  • At this point of time, English Wikisource has no checkusers and requests need to undertaken by stewards
    • it would be expected that requests on authentic users would be discussed on this wiki prior to progressing to stewards
    • requests by administrators for identification and blocking of IP ranges to manage spambots and longer term nuisance-only editing can be progressed directly to the stewards
    • requests for checkuser

Notice of checkuser action[edit]

In accordance with your local checkuser policy, I'm writing here to let you know that I've just checked and locked some wp0 abusers/spammers on this wiki. Regards, RadiX 20:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Page (un)protection requests[edit]

Request for protection of template:cl-act-paragraph on "sanity" grounds[edit]

Or to put it in criteria terms; Preservation of integrity of texts relying on it. After some lengthy analysis what seemed to be a logic failure was finally eliminated, which meant it wasn't rendering certain content.

A replacement is under development, but still needs testing. In the meanwhile I think it would be reasonable to prevent further edits to an already complex template, partly on the grounds of my own sanity, and partly so that changes to (such as swapping in any replacement) are only done with consensus, once the replacement has been extensively debugged. As a side comment I will note some other wiki's use Pending Changes on high use templates, I'm surprised that currently English Wikisource doesn't. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Declined on the following grounds:
a) it is marked as deprecated and therefore no changes should be being made to it;<
b) it is under discussion at WS:PD;
c) it is not a high-use template with < 500 uses across all namespaces.
with respect to the comment on Pending Changes and high use templates: once a template has proven to be stable and is being used across multiple works, our de facto policy has been to protect the template and restrict editing to Sysops only. Once a template is protected proposed changes should be worked out in the Sandbox. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


Resource Loader issue needs outside guidance[edit]

The more I read up on this RL change and the subsequent actions needed (or taken?), the more I get the feeling some of my approach to site wide & gadget .js/.css organization over the months is going to behind this week's latest problems. If that winds up to be the case, then I'm truly, truly sorry for that. Let me try to document those steps and the reasoning behind them in hopes someone (@Krinkle:) can made sense of our current state and put us on the right path post RL change(s).

Originally, we not only had a ridiculous amount of scripting and .css definitions in our primary site-wide MediaWiki files to begin with but also called a number of stand-alone .js/.css files within those primary MediaWiki files called unnecessarily in addition to calls to various sub-scripts on top of any User: selected gadgets being called -- some of which eventually became default loaded per concensus, etc..

A simple depiction of the key files mentioned minus any Gadgets basically went like this...

Over several months with help of other folks, I began to consolidate and/or eliminate as much scripting calls as I could -- creating optional Gadgets whenever possible -- and tried much the same for the .css class definitions. The rationale behind doing this can be found in several places, most importantly: Wikipedia. The premise to keep the MediaWiki site-wide files "lean" goes like this....

 * Keep code in MediaWiki:Common.js to a minimum as it is unconditionally
 * loaded for all users on every wiki page. If possible create a gadget that is
 * enabled by default instead of adding it here (since gadgets are fully
 * optimized ResourceLoader modules with possibility to add dependencies etc.)
 * Since Common.js isn't a gadget, there is no place to declare its
 * dependencies, so we have to lazy load them with mw.loader.using on demand and
 * then execute the rest in the callback. In most cases these dependencies will
 * be loaded (or loading) already and the callback will not be delayed. In case a
 * dependency hasn't arrived yet it'll make sure those are loaded before this.

The result of that effort as it stands today can be depicted basically like this....

The predominant change in order to move towards the previously cited rationale & approach is that the bulk of the scripting and class definitions now reside in the default-enabled Site gadget files, MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.js & MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css. And by no means is the current state the desired final approach; its been a work in progress as time allowed over several months.

Obviously, now with the recent change to Gadgets and ResourceLoader, either the existing rationale or my attempts (or both) are no longer in harmony -- if they ever were. In my view, we need someone like Krinkle (or maybe the collective minds of Wikitech-l?) to take the time and attention needed to come in here and straighten all this out -- one way or the other. My gut tells me THAT will resolve the reported loss of one thing or another post-RL change(s). Again, if I'm right about my actions exacerbating problems for other, I apologize and take full responsibility. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes in addition to yours that hopefully make things work a bit more like you intended. I'm happy to provide further guidance but that probably works better for a more specific need or question. Perhaps bring it up on Wikitech-l or on IRC so we I can help you move forward with any unresolved issues. Krinkle (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Transclusion display change — right margin[edit]

I am looking at some transcluded chapters, eg. Chartism/Chapter 10 and I see that we now have an indented right margin (~90%???) and full formatting rather than left formatting (jagged right edge). Has someone made a local change or have we inherited something along the way? — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: do you know where this has occurred? I cannot see local change, and then working out where the formatting occurs is unknown to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps something similar with this left margin which was not on my user's page and appeared recently without my knowing how or why? I've had a similar surprise on the French wikisource too. --Zyephyrus (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
For whatsoever this is worth (probably not much) this "change" in the right margin is most definitely (Java)Script driven rather than a CSS change (load the page with javascript disabled: result renders fine without restriction on right margin.) I think I may have gotten to the bottom of this although I'll leave others to add the reasoning for why the changes were made:
  • MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css has specified a right-margin of 3em forever (well since at least May, 2015 which is as far back as I have checked)—per
    body.ns-0 div#regionContainer {
    	position: relative;
    	display: block;
    	box-sizing: border-box;
    	margin-right: 3.00em;
    	margin-left: 3.00em;
  • MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js has attempted to enable the above since forever but using buggy code which appears to have been "fixed" in this change on 1st January, 2016.
The net result is as observed, at least as far as English wikisource is concerned. AuFCL (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The issue for me is the header template now is wider than the body component, so when items are centred in both, there is no alignment it looks buggy to my eyes. Does that also explain the fully justified page formatting, rather than the left alignment? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Pardon. I understood the "okay with frown" part: I was only reporting the status quo as I observe it: with the expectation it might give the appropriate users the sensitive points at which further change might best be implemented should they (you?) so choose. However I completely fail to understand your comment and thus cannot help further. AuFCL (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

User deleting COPYVIO notices after being warned not to[edit]

User:Slowking4 has removed a COPYVIO notice from The Coming of Wireless twice, once after being warned not to. I am definitely involved, so I ask for some other admin to take action.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I have asked Slowking4 to participate in the conversation, rather than undo the conversation starter. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Need to import Template:MongolUnicode from Wikipedia[edit]


To display correctly some Manchu characters in A Manchu Grammar, I need to import the w:Template:MongolUnicode from Wikipedia while preserving the author credit of this template. Thanks in advance.

Assassas77 (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


I am looking at

The book is public domain since it was published in 1918. However, there are watermarks everywhere. Can this be uploaded? Thanks.

Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, however there is a better scan at, which doesn't have the google stuff all through it. The images are also better. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Lightly problematic user RoboDork / WolfHolwer[edit]

To note that users "RoboDork" and "WolfHolwer" are the same, and undertaking light-irritation editing. I have blocked the first for a week, and indef'd the latter account. I have left a warning on the first, though don't think that it will make an iota of difference. If they come back with a new guise, I suggest that we look to get checkusers done and start blocking the underlying IPs, where possible. We may need to do some protection on templates if they continue to fiddle in nuisance areas. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a Mass rollback[edit]

I would like to request a massive rollback of my contributions to Main, Page and Template namespace back to KNOWN versions of the relevant pages as they stood at the time of this edit

The reason being that the edits subsequent to this are for the most part good faith efforts to fix Linter indicated concerns. However it's been indicated elsewhere that there are other approaches are being considered, and thus it would be impractical to have a lone contributor however well intentioned making 'fix' edits that had not been appropriately co-ordinated, on a per Index basis if needed.

It is therefore requested to roll back my well intentioned efforts to KNOWN versions so that a seemingly competent team can implement ONE set of comprehensive patches universally across all affected works, instead of a lone contributor implementing page by page fixes, which may be inconsistent with the overall style used in a particular Index.

The alternative would be for someone other than myself with a LOT of spare time, to review every single edit made since the one mentioned, to ensure that any "fixes" were not of themselves creating more problems. I honestly don't see that reasonably happening on an appropriate timescale. A suggestion to re-set the proofreading status of affected Page: 's was considered counter productive, but I don't see how there would be a way to check that a 'fix' has remained stable, without additional reviewers. And I will note that in making some fixes, even with the best of intentions it is entirely possible additional concerns have inadvertently been introduced.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally, self-requested blocks are not agreed to by admins on this project, but in this instance, given my lack of competence it may be wise to consider a voluntary 'calm-down' period. Let's say 2 weeks to a month to let there be an agreed set of Linter "fixes" on a per Index basis, if needed? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your Linter fix efforts. Sorry if they turn out to have been wasted, though I doubt that's the case. I don't think it would be appropriate to rollback anything unless/until a concrete solution is found and a rollback is seen as essential to it. Hesperian 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Hesperian. My comment, to which you allude, was about a bot request to do a broad-ranging task, and for such the community should reach consensus (as per Wikisource:Bots), rather than an "eyes wide approach" to manual, sensible fixes, which you are doing. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

WS:APD request[edit]

Per WS:APD, I requesting the autopatrolled permission. I understand Wikisource policies and guidelines as well as the copyright policy.

Thank you for consideration. Let me know if you have any follow up questions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: I have a quick review of some edits, and I am currently not willing to assign autopatrolled, as I don't think that you have yet grasped our Wikisource:Style guide. And that is more due to our failure as a community, we have not suitably patrolled and given you sufficient guidance in your edits. Your adding of paragraph-leading indents [1] and the categorisation such as Category:Politics of the United States/New York Times and Carl Schurz are both contrary to our style. We need to lift our game in patrolling yours and other people's edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
billinghurst, fair is fair. I accept your judgement and will try to move forward in a constructive way. Thanks for letting me know, and please let me know in the future if any of my other edits are contrary to policy. If there is anything else I can do to improve Wikisource experience, I will gladly do so! Thanks again! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 01:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
As I said, it isn't your failure but our community's. I will admit to have patrolled less, though will plead other duties. I know I did some in your early days and will look to get into some of your edits and to provide some feedback; though my time critical commitments are still there. And don't sweat it, we use the marker as an indicator of where we see a user contributing and when we need to follow/stop following them around. We have our elements of complexity and we do like to support new users, and this truly helps. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Remind me please[edit]

of the best way to roll back edits due to vandalization when the roll back options only limit you to a certain number [2]. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Manually replace the page contents with the contents of the last good revision? That's the best I can think of. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Three ways and depending on what you already know, or what you want to do. Go to the history, then either
  • select the first and last of your choice, and press "compare select revisions" and once there, you can just undo; OR
  • click on the date and time of the edit to which you wish to return, and it will give you the Permalink view, and clicking edit will edit that version; so click and save (notice the warning); OR
  • click on one of the prev links (last best edit, bad edit) and you should have an edit link in the diff to the good version to which you want to return
As a note, the reason you don't get a rollback for all is there are two different IP editors, though on the same /24. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
So, with the first option, clicking "undo" in the last edit (right column) will revert back to Htonl's edit (left column)? The right column will go back to the left? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Think I got it, thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, when you have purposefully selected the beginning of the comparative range, the undo does from last to your select point; when you come into a last edit (usually from RC), by default, the range is just the last edit. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent deletion and block[edit]

Can someone please check me on a recent deletion and block I made regarding User:SquamishPolitical? Please advise on block time, and whether the deleted page should be protected. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
For anyone legitimately operating from a logged-in account, I would always add a {{welcome}} message (hope!), and a toss-up whether to add a {{subst:test}}. If someone re-adds a deleted off-topic page, then a little extra emphasis is never astray if you think that it is outside of good faith. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The subject matter read more like a "news" story, but seemed to me like an opportunity to dish dirt. I did not seek to look into details at all. I just knew it was way beyond scope and should probably be taken down. And the fact that my initial warning & deletion was ignored didn't give me a good feel. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Pseudobot -> Bot user[edit]

At some point in the past (time unknown) there has been a systemic descriptive and link change in Mediawiki for what we define as bot users, with the name having become Pseudobot. This was showing at Special:ListGroupRights and with components through Special:UserRights. As our naming is pretty entrenched, I have made the cosmetic changes to update the required names and links to "bot user(s)"

If users want to see affected pages with raw code, then remember that you can use uselang=qqx in index.php urls to see the underlying code. For a view of all messages see Special:AllMessages. Ping me if there are any questions. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

mul:The Morals of Chess[edit]

Can an admin import the text from Multilingual Wikisource to preserve the original contributor info? I think, the text should have been uploaded initially to English Wikisource. Ankry (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If a djvu is needed, there is one here : Internet Archive bub_gb_cCYCAAAAYAAJ Assassas77 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Yes check.svg transwikied — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)